[Edu-sig] The fate of raw_input() in Python 3000

[Arthur]

John Zelle wrote:

>So yes, we want our 
>students to be reading cade, especially good code
>
How good? 

Another subtle problem.

One of my difficulties in becoming self-taught fluent in certain 
mathematical ideas:

Educators don't want to communicate something irresponsible in 
connection with the concept of  rigor, in a field where rigor is to the 
essence of things.  While at the same time the rigorous statement of 
things can the impede the possibility of penetration, where a more 
approximate presentation might be more to the pedagogical point.

What I have found that going to the source is often the best approach 
(though often not).  Felix Klein types often seem more comfortable with 
a more casual and relaxed presentation of their ideas, to a non-peer 
audience, than do those charged with presenting Klein's ideas to others. 
The educators seem to feel - the instinct is good enough - more 
obligated to present Klein's ideas carefully, and therefore rigorously.  
And seem to feel that only Klein himself has the right to let himself 
off that hook.  Its almost a form of professional etiquette, it seems. 
"Klein" meant here as a more general concept.

Fuller had the solution . Make believe the ideas were his, thereby 
giving himself leave to present them anyway he chose .But that is a 
concept hard to roll out. ;).

Teasing, Kirby.

Art




>, but I also want my 
>students to be writing programs, lots and lots of programs. It's hard to 
>appreciate what makes code good until you've written some bad stuff yourself.
>
>--John
>
>On Wednesday 13 September 2006 7:18 am, Arthur wrote:
>  
>
>>Peter Bowyer wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>At 11:47 13/09/2006, Arthur wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I can imagine an introductory course that was in fact more a
>>>>*reading* course than a writing course - that spent a good deal of
>>>>its time analyzing the code of  relatively straightforward, but
>>>>interesting, working applications.  The satellite view, before we
>>>>attempt to descend to a finer resolution.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>That's a lot like how I learned to program.  I bought a book
>>>(Professional PHP - nothing like an intro book!) and once I'd read
>>>some basics I went in and wrote a proper application - an ecard
>>>script, following the outline of Perl code that I'd read previously
>>>(without being able to write).  That way I learned from someone else
>>>(apprenticeship) and wrote something that was *useful* when finished
>>>(encouraging me to learn).
>>>      
>>>
>>Myself as well.  My first "major" Python project was simply a port of
>>some Java code to Python  - a 3d math library.  Read/write - read the
>>Java, write the Python. But in the end I had something actually useful,
>>to an extent I could not possibly have  accomplished at that point on a
>>write/write basis.
>>
>>All this of course makes Open Source of central importance.  It happens
>>that the 3d Java library I wanted to port was not open - nice API docs,
>>no source.  Luckily someone in Japan had taken upon themselves to do a
>>functionally equivalent Open Source version of the library, .i.e.
>>creating functional source working backward from the API.
>>
>>As it happens, on a *read* basis, about the first thing one can expect
>>to encounter and need to explain  (maybe after the doc string) is the
>>"import" statement.  To me this feels exactly right.  OTOH, a recent
>>post on the Python3000 list - discussing the fate of raw_input() -
>>re-iterates the position that an understanding of the import statement
>>is something that belongs way, way down the road - in a way that was
>>much to sure of itself, for my taste.
>>
>>That one point - where the "import" statement belongs, pedagogically -
>>seems to in some way represent the quake line of different points of
>>view.  Bucky might recognize this fact as a symptom of a pre-synergistic
>>stage of things. But one side or the other always needs to lose some
>>surety in order to make a first move in the direction of synergy..
>>
>>You first ... whoever you is ;)
>>
>>Art
>>
>>    
>>
>>>When studying physics I found the same approach worked, taking a
>>>real-world application generated enthusiasm for learning esoteric
>>>subjects.  If you enjoy learning for the sake of knowledge I guess
>>>this approach isn't needed; otherwise I believe it to be the most
>>>effective approach.
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Edu-sig mailing list
>>Edu-sig at python.org
>>http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
>>    
>>
>
>  
>